Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) granted asylum

[jimnyc]

As has already been pointed out by lawyers in the States, the wording of the Act is so broad that any News editor who reported what wikileaks reported could be charged and convicted. That's an awful lot of traitors...

Lame, lame lame.Give us a history of when it's been used, please....

"IF" someone brought it forth incorrectly, I believe a judge and jury would see the case for what it is and appropriately use the wording of the act to the alleged crime in front of them. But this hasn't happened anyway, has it? The fact is, the reason that the act was written, was not for the lame reasons you bring forth, but for the exact things that Manning/Assange conspired to do.

But back to your lame point - if these people could just as easily be charged and convicted, let's discuss the misuse of this act before going forward. Please cite for us where these editors or reporters have been charged, and let's dissect the reasoning behind them meeting the act of 1917. Surely there had to be good reasoning to charge these editors and surely a judge or jury saw valid reason for their "crimes" to be connected, and find them guilty of this act. So let's start there.

I'll answer for you, it hasn't happened, and the charges wouldn't stick in such a lame comparison, and this is why no charges were ever brought forth in such a lame comparison.

[jimnyc]

So Jimmy, do you now agree with me when I said in another thread that there should be limits placed upon freedom of speech when said freedom of speech may incite others to violence or cause people to lose their lives?

I never once stated that freedom of speech didn't or shouldn't come with limitations, ever. Of course there are limitations. I even agreed in that thread that yelling "fire" in a crowded theater would be beyond the freedom, IMO. So surely theft of confidential information and dissemination of them is beyond any of these freedoms. IMO, freedom of speech doesn't even enter the realm of this case at all.

At the VERY least, Manning is guilty of theft and Assange guilty of conspiracy to commit theft. Both of this cannot be disputed. Well, some will try, but facts are facts.

Where do you feel freedom of speech fits into any of this? Are you of the belief that some feel he has the right to have done what he did with these documents, based on that amendment?

[Neo]

In the same sense that a Danish cartoonist put the lives of people who worked at a newspaper at risk by drawing pictures of the blessed mohammed.

When American troops abuse prisoners in their care et al, they are the ones putting their brothers and sisters in danger, to claim that such abuses have to be covered up, less their be a backlash (and then to put the blame on the person doing sharing the information) is to miss the point.

The difference is the cartoonist put himself at risk, and later was murdered in cold blood and in broad daylight no less, by one of those so called Muslim "Religion of Peace" diciples of yours. Where you get him putting others at risk with HIS work defies logic, then again you are a "Pinhead" receipient, so maybe not.

As for American troops abusing prisoners, you paint with a mighty broad brush. Those incidents are far and few between and the responsible party(s) are punished. There isn't a cover-up just because we don't broadcast it, and who the hell died and made Assange, or anyone else for that matter, the lone judge and jury of what should be public or not?

Can we say "pompous"?

We treat our prisoners better than we treat our own troops and bend over backwards to insure their good care. Prisoners at Gitmo are provided prayer rugs, Korans, time to pray however many times they require, meals in their traditions, and the finest medical care in the world, bar none. They got it better there than at home.

You really are clueless, aren't you?

Nevermind, rhetorical question.

[Noir]

What crime did he commit that placed people at risk? What confidential documents did he release? Talk about apples and oranges, these 2 cases aren't even remotely close.

The name of the crime doesn't matter (tough if you want one, something like 'incitement to hatred' would suffice.) The point is the principle - curtailing freedom of speech because of a violent reaction to it, is a bad path to go down.

Point me to where anyone here is stating that these troops shouldn't meet justice? But that wasn't part of their plan, or they would just have released what they thought were criminal actions being covered up. They releases everything and anything that they could get their hands on.

But it's you who misses the point. No matter how many crimes they bring to light, and no matter how much good intent they may have had - the still committed crimes.

They are only 'crimes' because he made the information public, if he gathered information, and sold it to American companies, he'd be like any other American spy. Unless i have you wrong, and you think that all American spys should be sent to the countries they've shared information about, to face justice for their, well, crimes?

[jimnyc]

The name of the crime doesn't matter (tough if you want one, something like 'incitement to hatred' would suffice.) The point is the principle - curtailing freedom of speech because of a violent reaction to it, is a bad path to go down.

Does Denmark have "freedom of speech" in their constitution? I don't know what types of freedoms they have in that regard in comparison to the US. Either way, I don't see a curtailing of FOS in Denmark, if that's what you're getting at, nor has there been any curtailing in the US due to the Assange/Manning case. In fact, I still don't see where FOS has anything to do with this thread. One person potentially placed himself and others at risk, because of a perfectly legal action - which you're trying to compare to the actions of Assange and Manning, which were based on illegal actions. Divulging confidential documents is not freedom of speech. And even if you were to make that argument, you yourself pointed out that Assange is not an American, therefore he holds no rights under our constitution.

They are only 'crimes' because he made the information public, if he gathered information, and sold it to American companies, he'd be like any other American spy. Unless i have you wrong, and you think that all American spys should be sent to the countries they've shared information about, to face justice for their, well, crimes?

The minute Manning STOLE the documents and then passed them onto Assange - crimes were committed. They both could have been prosecuted on the theft charges alone, and it wouldn't be petty theft.

And yes, every person who is a spy for their country, is committing illegal acts once they do certain things in a foreign country. If caught in the commission of a crime, there's really not much to do in their defense, a crime is a crime. And it all depends on which country they were accused of committing crimes against and what evidence they have. But if it's damning evidence and we have a extradition treaty with them, I don't see how we would be able to ignore the law. This is why we hire the best of the best and give them the best of training, and they 'never' get caught.

[Neo]

The name of the crime doesn't matter (tough if you want one, something like 'incitement to hatred' would suffice.) The point is the principle - curtailing freedom of speech because of a violent reaction to it, is a bad path to go down.



They are only 'crimes' because he made the information public, if he gathered information, and sold it to American companies, he'd be like any other American spy. Unless i have you wrong, and you think that all American spys should be sent to the countries they've shared information about, to face justice for their, well, crimes?

Jimmy, you follow this fella's thinking, because he makes zero sense to me, totally illogical. Correct me here if I'm wrong Jim, but stealing, or in this case, espionage, is a crime no matter if you sell it or give it away. Then there's the matter of accepting and possessing stolen goods, also a crime. Then you publish it and put peoples lives at risk? Tsk, tsk! Where oh where is that fabled Lib concern and compassion for human rights?

Or is that selective based on ones political agenda?

Help me out here, will ya Jim?

[jimnyc]

Jimmy, you follow this fella's thinking, because he makes zero sense to me, totally illogical. Correct me here if I'm wrong Jim, but stealing, or in this case, espionage, is a crime no matter if you sell it or give it away. Then there's the matter of accepting and possessing stolen goods, also a crime. Then you publish it and put peoples lives at risk? Tsk, tsk! Where oh where is that fabled Lib concern and compassion for human rights?

Or is that selective based on ones political agenda?

Help me out here, will ya Jim?

The more you inject into the debate about criminal actions the more obfuscation you will see to turn him into a hero. Bottom line, and first hurdle to get past - DID theft take place? DID the stolen documents go to Assange. These answers are very clearly yes. No one doubts that Manning "took" these documents and no one doubts that Assange/Wikileaks received the documents. You steal a candy bar and you get charged with petty theft, pay a small fine and have a criminal record. Steal a car and you are charged with felony theft and will be incarcerated for a period of time. This crime is easily worse than both of those theft examples. Some are making thieves out to be heroes because it politically suits them. But a crime is a crime is a crime.

[Neo]

The more you inject into the debate about criminal actions the more obfuscation you will see to turn him into a hero. Bottom line, and first hurdle to get past - DID theft take place? DID the stolen documents go to Assange. These answers are very clearly yes. No one doubts that Manning "took" these documents and no one doubts that Assange/Wikileaks received the documents. You steal a candy bar and you get charged with petty theft, pay a small fine and have a criminal record. Steal a car and you are charged with felony theft and will be incarcerated for a period of time. This crime is easily worse than both of those theft examples. Some are making thieves out to be heroes because it politically suits them. But a crime is a crime is a crime.

I think you're on to something here Jim. So, in a nutshell: A theft/act of espionage did occur as did the crime of accepting and possessing stolen goods, in this case, the government/peoples "good" ie..top secret documents.

Some folks, believing 2 wrongs make a right so long as it helps to further their political agenda(s), sanction this type of blatently criminal activity. I'm going to take a shot in the dark here and guess that Noir and jafar don't think Manning should be prosecuted for espinoge and treason either.

Aren't Libs the damnest folks!

[logroller]

The more you inject into the debate about criminal actions the more obfuscation you will see to turn him into a hero. Bottom line, and first hurdle to get past - DID theft take place? DID the stolen documents go to Assange. These answers are very clearly yes. No one doubts that Manning "took" these documents and no one doubts that Assange/Wikileaks received the documents. You steal a candy bar and you get charged with petty theft, pay a small fine and have a criminal record. Steal a car and you are charged with felony theft and will be incarcerated for a period of time. This crime is easily worse than both of those theft examples. Some are making thieves out to be heroes because it politically suits them. But a crime is a crime is a crime.

Hold up here; what's the bottom line? When did the first crime occur? It wasn't manning or assange; that came later.
Let me give you an example. Let's say I break into a house and discover a human trafficking operation; if I report that, in no uncertain terms, I have violated the private domain and disseminated information uncovered illegal. Should the police say, b&e, you're going to jail! No need to investigate the operation since it was discovered illegally?
The bottom line is, as i see through your post, its not illegal if the govt does it.
Now that's a commonly held belief, which I think many of us share when it policially suits us...but ask yourself, what differs between that and fast and the furious? Politics I suppose. Kinda sad when citizens' rights take a back seat to political agendas; dontcha think?

Reminds me of a few good men..Col Jessup; "You cant handle the truth...my existence, though grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives..."

[jimnyc]

Hold up here; what's the bottom line? When did the first crime occur? It wasn't manning or assange; that came later.
Let me give you an example. Let's say I break into a house and discover a human trafficking operation; if I report that, in no uncertain terms, I have violated the private domain and disseminated information uncovered illegal. Should the police say, b&e, you're going to jail! No need to investigate the operation since it was discovered illegally?
The bottom line is, as i see through your post, its not illegal if the govt does it.
Now that's a commonly held belief, which I think many of us share when it policially suits us...but ask yourself, what differs between that and fast and the furious? Politics I suppose. Kinda sad when citizens' rights take a back seat to political agendas; dontcha think?

Reminds me of a few good men..Col Jessup; "You cant handle the truth...my existence, though grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives..."

You would be VERY hard pressed to find a post of mine where I defended any actions of the government, especially anything criminal. I do think the government needs to be held accountable, but that hardly absolves other criminals from their actions. And that's what you guys are trying to do, declare innocence on the part of Assange/Manning because they may have exposed illegal activity amongst the endless amount of information they passed along. Neither action should make the other any less legal. It matters not WHEN the information took place. If we're talking about 2 crimes here, if that's what you're getting at, then the crimes need to be handled separately. NOTHING in any of these documents would allow us to ignore the criminal actions that took place to bring them to light. However great some may see these actions, it was still criminal actions that brought them to light. Is that what we're shooting for here in the US? If we can't handle something legally, use criminal actions instead?

As to your analogy, the thief should rightly so be locked up immediately for his criminal actions. If anything was discovered that can legally be held against the victim, then that gets handled separately. But we simply can't tell the thief that we'll get back to him another day as the other crime took place first.

A crime is a crime is a crime. We don't get to pick and choose, and for Any reason declare a crime not a crime - that's what our justice system is for.

[aboutime]

No matter how anyone wants, or needs to see what Assange did. He broke U.S. Federal laws. Two wrongs do not make a Right. Anyone in the military today, who witnesses any member of the military performing any illegal act IS...just as guilty as the offender if the second person SAYS nothing.
But that is now what Assange did with relation to the disclosure of Government, classified materials. Someone provided him access to the classified materials, and he happily published them without regard to what the consequences of such disclosures might do to the American people, or those in the Security agencies who may have been compromised with his disclosures...all in the name of a Wannabe Whistle-blower.
Since he was granted asylum in an Embassy located in the British Isles. He thinks he is safe.

Until the day arrives when he tries to step out on the Soil of Great Britain. Then it is over.

[Drummond]

I see him as a hero. A champion of Freedom of Speech.
So what if the material released makes western leaders look more corrupt than the worst of African tinpot dictators. This kind of checks and balances is what the world needs. Do you really know what unspeakables your government is doing in secret in your name?

For example

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/eliasi...worst-one-yet/

And you wonder why "they" hate you.

Jafar, you talk of 'checks and balances'. Isn't the whole point of what Wikileaks has done is that it's set about BUSTING UP those checks and balances ?

Assange has done this to a number of countries .. he's a wrecker. He couldn't have possibly believed that anything other than harm could come from his activities.

And note who his friends and supporters are .. most notably, creatures of the LEFT, such as John Pilger, who I've mentioned previously. Pilger is both anti-British Establishment, and anti-American. He was advocating actions of civil disobedience several years ago, because of American activities in the War on Terror !!

But as for Assange, it's my understanding that though America hasn't been his only victim by any means, he has singled out America for particular focus. No wonder the Left likes him.

Final point. American and UK citizens both elect their Governments, therefore, they elect those who have Governmental influence in the matters that Assange has seen fit to meddle with. So tell me, Jafar, who elected Assange and his friends to THEIR positions, who do THEY democratically represent ?

If the answer is 'nobody did' .. AND IT IS .. then one can argue that Assange has been undemocratic in his attacks, and even that they amount to an assault upon democracy itself.

[Drummond]

No matter how anyone wants, or needs to see what Assange did. He broke U.S. Federal laws. Two wrongs do not make a Right. Anyone in the military today, who witnesses any member of the military performing any illegal act IS...just as guilty as the offender if the second person SAYS nothing.
But that is now what Assange did with relation to the disclosure of Government, classified materials. Someone provided him access to the classified materials, and he happily published them without regard to what the consequences of such disclosures might do to the American people, or those in the Security agencies who may have been compromised with his disclosures...all in the name of a Wannabe Whistle-blower.
Since he was granted asylum in an Embassy located in the British Isles. He thinks he is safe.

Until the day arrives when he tries to step out on the Soil of Great Britain. Then it is over.

Even if he thinks he's safe, he may not be. There IS legislation in British law which would provide (if the UK ever used it) for the Embassy to lose its status as one, in which case, the Embassy would become British soil, therefore fully accessible to our authorities.

This is problematic, though, because if the diplomatic inviolability of foreign Embassies was brought into question more generally, the effect worldwide could be potentially ruinous.

My guess - Westminster will wait .. for a while. If they become convinced that this is too unbreakable a stalemate, though, they will revoke the status of the Embassy and go in to take Assange into custody. I don't believe we'll wait 'forever' before acting.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/08/1...lemate-embassy

The British government is threatening to use a 1987 British law it says permits the revocation of diplomatic status of a building if the foreign power occupying it “ceases to use land for the purposes of its mission or exclusively for the purposes of a consular post.” The use of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act however would trigger an international outcry and beg for acts of retaliations.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires diplomats to comply with the laws of the host country and international law does not expressly endorse diplomatic asylum in such cases. That 1961 convention suggests that Ecuador is legally obligated to turn over Assange.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In the same sense that a Danish cartoonist put the lives of people who worked at a newspaper at risk by drawing pictures of the blessed mohammed.
When American troops abuse prisoners in their care et al, they are the ones putting their brothers and sisters in danger, to claim that such abuses have to be covered up, less their be a backlash (and then to put the blame on the person doing sharing the information) is to miss the point.

Bolded above, tells me what I've been wondering about you. " the blessed mohammed", pretty much says it all!!
While you defend those that murdered over a cartoon being made of that ffing pervert!!
Are you truly a "rugmaster" ?-Tyr

[jimnyc]

I've been disgusted with the Clintons enough over the years, so I'm not going to post either of their words here, but it's interesting to read the take of both of them regarding Wikileaks and Assange. And so much for the vetting of the material, perhaps to minimize or exclude anything that may put lives at risk, Assange's partner left, was fired, and one of his reasons was the rushing out of articles without any type of vetting. Back to the Clintons, look up their statements, these releases placed a whole helluva lot more in danger than just operatives. These cables listed, which is far from an act of whistleblowing, the locations manufacturers of various vaccines (smallpox being the worrisome one), plutonium poisoning and much more but I can't remember... Then the locations of all kinds of underground cables, mineral firms, key communication hubs, and other confidential projects we and others have been involved with in Chine, Middle East, New Zealand... Apparently TONS of infrastructure sites that were held confidential for good reasoning, but far from illegal or any reason whistleblowing would come into play. Basically a nice little potential map for future terrorists.

But the vetting... about 10-12 "employees" of Wikileaks bailed ship all around the same time, because of the direction he was taking the company and how he refused to partake in anything else other than Afghan and Iraqi interests. And they got a little ticked when he wanted to rush out material without appropriate vetting to ensure further lives weren't placed at risk. He simply claimed the "potential" for saved lives outweighed the risks. Now some of them have a bulls eye on them because of Assange running the ship with regard for the safety of anyone, whether them or those from around the world in the releases.